Editorial: Parking ruling should lead to decisiveness

Bob Doerger came through the 'drive-through petition signing' in March at Mount Lookout Square where volunteers where out collecting signatures on petitions to get the parking issue on the November ballot.

Whatever you think about the plan to lease the city's parking meters and garages, the ruling from First District Court of Appeals is a blow to government by referendum, which is a good thing.

Waiting until a November vote on the issue would have created unnecessary delays and led us further down a path in which every decision is put before the voters, with all the attendant costs, financial and otherwise. We elect leaders to make these decisions for us; if we don't like their decisions, we have the option of voting them out.

This decision also upholds the practice of passing emergency ordinances, which will have an effect far past the immediate matter of the parking plan. After much discussion of commas, semicolons and grammar, the decision ultimately says the charter defers to state law, which allows for emergency ordinances. It also says the emergency ordinance in this case was properly enacted.

And it says if voters don't like all these emergency ordinances, they should elect council members who won't enact them as much, or change the charter.

Onto the merits and drawbacks of the parking plan itself: Much has changed since City Council passed the plan back in March to lease the city's parking to a private company through the Port Authority of Greater Cincinnati. The city had planned to use part of the upfront, $92 million payment from the parking lease to fill a $35 million gap in the budget. But council members were somehow able to plug that hole without the parking money, even though at the time they said that would be impossible without draconian layoffs.

Now, with an election looming in November and the prospect of thousands of voters who voiced opposition to the parking lease agreement, several council members are rethinking their previous commitment to it. This reconsideration isn't a bad idea. When the circumstances surrounding an agreement have changed as much as they have here, it can be helpful to take another look at it.

Can we negotiate for better terms? If we don't need the upfront payment to close a budget gap, would it be better to move a chunk of that into the annual payments, which are now scheduled to give the city $3 million a year?

Let's certainly discuss what's changed and whether we can get a more favorable deal, but let's not get bogged down in endless discussions and motions. There is political risk in forging ahead with the deal. But this plan was already debated once, and the majority thought it was a good idea. We'd love to see some decisiveness and resolve from this council, despite the possible political risks.

Lastly, there is the issue of what to do with the upfront payment the city will receive if council moves ahead with the parking plan. It's risky to drop a chunk of unexpected money in front of anyone, much less a group of elected officials, because the inclination is to spend it quickly before it disappears. This is where they must exercise prudence, and we must exercise influence. The priority in the city must remain attracting jobs and new residents.

With that in mind, council should consider reinstating the people they laid off as a result of the budget negotiations. Those positions, responsible for duties such as picking up trash and baiting sewers for rats, contribute to the livability that makes it easier to attract new residents.

Beyond those positions, council should consider funding the Port Authority to help create catalytic development projects. It should direct funds to the pension and retiree health-care system to address the shortfall. And it should do what it can to address the city's budget problems long-term, to end the annual ritual of budget showdowns we've become accustomed to.

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

Most Commented

More Headlines

Most Viewed

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Editorial: Parking ruling should lead to decisiveness

Whatever you think about the plan to lease the city's parking meters and garages, the ruling from First District Court of Appeals is a blow to government by referendum, which is a good thing.